MisterMan

To play devils advocate. ego is a force of nature aswell. So the two are inseperable through that framework In option A, he may be run by nature however the ego in option A is still seeking to escape suffering in anyway possible. We all have our own stairways to heaven, some it's money, others it's spirituality and others it's playing devils advocate on a forum. To debate wether it's unbalanced or not you'd have to look at what balance is. And how can we quantify balance in infinity? When you recognise that all of our distinctions are predicated upon our conditioning from past experiences, (force of nature) It pretty much lumps every one into the same category of being run by nature. Wether you're spiritual or not. Where is the question/debate coming from within? What caused you to ask this? And how do you feel about it? I feel you'd get more answers by questioning the presumptions of your debate deeper rather than the calculations of them.

Awareness, or this light that we call consciousness behaves much like how an odor interacts with our world where it attracts all sorts of different insects or animals . All distinctions between living entities for the purpose of this argument can fall under the category “organisms”. The bug zapper also attracts insects that are drawn to the UV light it and yes the bond these two forces (UV light and bug) have, or the relationship between the two continue to blur the lines between distinction, but may be true but isn't my main point. In both these examples, you can see the parallels to how the mind attracts living organisms we call thoughts. Thoughts in this way act like living organisms attracted by the “light of consciousness” or “stream of consciousness” which the latter however gets more into the non dual nature of things which again is not my point here, guys , please. Stop...... Stahp. If you are sad, organisms will be lured by the particular energy you are emitting. In this instance thoughts ( that behave like organisms that feed off other sources), are lured to this particular emotion. If you emit anger, the same would happen of organisms that are lured to that type of energy. However this distinction through language always gets you into murky territory, because this has already been a widely regarded view since we existed. We see this in demons that taunt and create suffering, or angels that guide you. Language really does creates your reality. Because both this idea and the one i am conveying i believe to share similarities to the point they are the same, and this same force is then refracted in meaning by the lens of language that we use to illustrate our ideas. Here you have the origins of religion. Rick and Morty had an episode that was similar to this idea where Rick became increasingly suspicious of these “bacteria” or “lifeforms” that fed off consciousness and created false memories where he was forced to lock his house down and contain the breach. He then get's other "wise" to this realisation whilst then falling under the illusion that these organisms where producing. Through eastern and esoteric philosophy you can see a definite correlation between what Rick and Morty episode was trying to convey and the understanding that the “I” is an illusion that doesn’t exist that was built off of fictional boundaries that we used to distinguish our reality. Which we then became so accustomed to, we forgot we ever did this and mistook the map for the territory. To this day, this can be seen as one of the most difficult illusions to break out of. And perhaps even this idea that I just conveyed to you operates under another false paradigm that I am stuck in without my own knowledge? Perhaps even my thinking a paradigm of being false is some sort of misunderstanding I cannot see yet. Or maybe my curiosities very own type of "UV light" is just luring in more thoughts? Maybe this is what the man means that Allan Watts mentions in his lecures who says "everything in this universe smells of burnt almonds" As not only does an odor attract entities, it attracts our very own awareness.

I'm currently working on a hiphop, trip hop, chill album. Here is a sample of what's to come. Would really welcome some feedback. Thanks https://soundcloud.com/scotopic23/here-we-go-again

Hey all, just thought id ask if any one has seen this and what they thought? He pretty much calls out all the categories that most of us fall under, then he began to orchestrate a story in which he explained how each group of people collectively felt over the generations and how they are all trying to steer the ship of their own society. And how each category feels about each other in different To re orient yourself to a reality where we're all just trying to live in harmony, and if we can just set aside our differences. Since Leo puts a lot of content that's in line with this sort of thinking, that we are collectively trying to engage with our hearts. As he uses tricks of the mind to get us there Chapelle did an excellent job expressing a really valuable and meaningful understanding of the world we all inhabit. That's really helps unite us. I can't speak more highly of this new show, personally my favourite of all time. Curious to what other people thought as there is a lot of depth in there that's worth exploring.

**I've gone through the guidelines and think i'm covered through the act below. Plus Leo always stressed to be critical of your own inner critic. Considering everything Leo says i genuinely agree with, i think some healthy criticism is good. I came across him and have engaged in a dialogue in the comment section on one of his video's critiquing Leo's Manking is the bullshiting animal. I personally can't find his reasons to be very thought provoking as it seems like he completely and utterly misses the point that Leo's making. Almost like he's too busy looking at the finger instead of looking where Leo is pointing at with what he's saying. However i do find value in conflicting arguments as it's a nice break from the echo chamber i'm in and am really curious as to why he is so against Leo. Most of his points just completely miss the point. But maybe I'm missing something. I don't want to get banned over this but i find this very compelling. Conflicting arguments that seem to hold very little substance other than asserting that Leo is inexperienced and has it all wrong. Without actually adressing any of the finer points he makes as he literally seems to focus on Leo's finger. What are your thoughts on this fella?

I found myself drawing a fractal image last night and it really sent me in an interesting process of discovery. As i was inferring another image based upon the previous inflection, you see that from anywhere i look, everything is directly connected to other things in this "shimmering" cataclysm. I have spent quite some time being disconcerted by falling down the rabbit whole of inflections, following it down and down and ultimately coming to realise that it doesn't end and every moment connects to it and the things you're referring to. Now the thing I'm referring to is connected to the drawing i did last night. And from impying significance in this one area, or image on whatever level, you recognise where it came from, and using that line of thinking you can keep going with it and find no end. Ultimately it seems that once you notice it, you recognise that it only exists to the figure it is in contrast to. Again inferring that it's something it is not. Suggesting, never knowing but supposing. How do you delight in this?

thank you so much for that. It is incredibly helpful.

This guy is my hero. in a twist of irony to what he says in this, I am so grateful for his teaching. But i would like to get some understanding, context, and maybe guidance in how i can assimilate, or simply navigate this. Ok so there is this story told by Tara Brach which summarised my psychological mindset now. And it's about a horse. There is a horse tamer and a horse. Who would of thought? And they were really good together. He was a race horse. But before he was a race horse he would be out of control. That is, until he met this horse tamer. So one day as the horse is doing one of his routines, something happens that triggers one of his early childhood trauma that he was suffering from. And it sent him into a panic. And bucked the rider and fled in fear. So the people go to the tamer to try and get it back for the race. So the tamer goes as and acted in accordance with the respect that their close connection deserved. He approaches, but maintains a lengthy distance. A healthy distance, he stood there in the far distance. Not close enough to see his face, but not far enough so that you can't distinguish him. He's quite far. And it showed that he was there for the horse in whatever capacity it needed him to be. This was obviously to do with my conditioning as a child growing up and not being given that space needed to come to terms with reality...on your own terms and not someone elses. But then upon listening to my friend Roger he begins to say that we will compile all sorts of stories and explanations dependant on past experience and circumstance to create a version of reality. Even when we think that "all is one" and all of that. Conceptually thinking it and thinking that conceptual thought leads to experience. And that that is not the teaching. And that this place he was talking about was really transforming me while i was listening to it. Everything began to appear to me a dream. All the people i met today were dream characters and with that perception with it came this sense that i really was creating the stage for everything to happen. When you're in a dream there is a feeling present within my experience that i do not share in reality. Maybe it's not when I'm in the dream but when awake i realise that the whole setup was created by conciousness. And that there is this emotional charge that runs through each happening. And that you get to in some part decide how you'd like to participate with each happening. Attitude wise. He then speaks about "flip flopping" from enlightenment experience bringing forth great peace, to losing that and going back to the old ways of thinking. And being hard done about it. And also realising that this whole procedure of transformation is part of the dream i am creating. I want to be changing. And that conciousness doesn't have a body, but it localises it within the body as a means to partake in this life. But the whole experience can't be divided into inside and outside. And that all of this is not true as these are thoughts and ideas are dependant on circumstance and experience. And that through this flip flopping of insight, from peace to anxiety one gets upset with him/herself. And personally these insights (which he directly adresses in this video) hav led me to recognise how dependant i am upon circumstance to be happy. And he cleverly re frames it. To, now you know, this is direct proof that happiness is NOT to be found in circumstance. So you find yourself in a different place. Where your attitude counts more than you ever thought possible. Rather than think our happiness is dependant on circumstance, a flow of opposites in intercourse with each other as you observe the happening. So it's a deeper recognition that happiness comes from your attitude to circumstance and does not come from circumstance itself. I also had this surreal sense that reality is silk. That we were all connected with silk, but that silk extends through to all forms. As this way of thinking implies the real untethered connection between all things.

We seek to be better precisely because we are not. When we seek, we simultaneously are going away from something else. What is it that you are going towards in this scenario? And when accurately defined? What is it's Polar opposite? Be with that, and if you like flaunt yourself! But be Ok with the part of you that needs this to be. It's very hard i know because we are all set and dependant on what others think etc. But again, what is it in that scenario that you are looking to gain? And then by contrast look at it's polar opposite. You don't get better by banishing or defeating the bad stuff, you accept it. Love it to death.

Yes ofcourse IT exists. Because IT refers to existence. Does it exist? Define it? It is existence. Well there's your answer. The answers in the question.

Some one should do a graph measuring the frequency of this idea surfacing in conjunction with the lunar calendar.

Leo if you could weigh in on this, I'd be grateful. To any one for that matter. Last night was a big opening up but the flip flop happens and it would be good to get some guidance as I'm sure my experiences aren't exclusive to myself. Any one who is in a position to help please do.

Boooo urns

Yep, druggy here. Doing spirituality work. :)) What contradiction of forces.

Lol this idea seems to surface to breathe atleast once a month

His conciousness levels are well below 9000. Pathetic

FUcken tripped out shit. Pretty much talks about what Leo was saying. That God is a designer. And it's through geometry we can understand this. Fucken crazy shit.

I have to admit i laughed a good time after seeing Leo from after the retreat completely different. Wow this is going to be interesting.

It's actually really funny to have Leo and unspirituality follow him right after. It's like 2 opposing views clashing.

Have to go see what unspirituality has to say. Omg he's got 4 parts already! Omg he just basically parrots Leo in a dumb voice the entire time.

Yeah. and the forum is Vegeta.

Do you have any links with this type of thing? This train of thought? I like where it's going.

Lol did you get that from a Teal Swan video?

I honestly think Leo's new video explains it. Aztec Non Duality. With the shapeshifting god analogy.

If one suggests the other. How are they separate to begin with? What is this insistence on this invisible line of separation? What is it? What is it that see's the differences between a whole unit?